Brownback’s Favoritism: The inequality of Kansas Tax Structure

Equal Taxation

Kansas has relied historically on three tax sources to support Kansas government: property, retail sales and personal income. In pre-Great Recession 2008, the three sources made up 87.1 percent of total state and local taxes with property taxes at 33.6%, income taxes at 27.9% and sales taxes at 25.6%. The balance of revenue (12.9%) came from motor fuel, vehicle registration, unemployment insurance, insurance premiums, mineral severance taxes and miscellaneous other taxes. (See footnote) For years, Kansas tax policy sought balance and diversification among the three primary sources. The policy has worked to provide stability to Kansas governmental finance, to keep rates on any source lower and lessen competition from adjoining states vis-à-vis the rates for these sources.

The recent state tax policy change to eliminate personal income taxes eventually has stirred a debate over a once settled issue. Without the income tax and unachievable, massive reductions in state and local budgets, property and sales taxes are certain to increase, a prospect that raises the issue of the regressive character of the two sources. The fairness of increasing property and sales taxes is eclipsed by the lack of fairness of exempting so-called “pass through” income from taxation altogether. The question about tax policy has become not one of how regressive is a tax, but how unequal is an income tax when some pay and some don’t. The non-taxpayers are touted as job creators who need the exempted taxes to fund business expansion. The heavier share of the total tax burden being shifted to a wage-earner is never mentioned as vital support for the Kansas economy even though that’s exactly what has happened. Equal taxation has become a deciding issue for the wage and salary earner and others such as retirees who are a strong segment of the Kansas economy.

An examination of property and sales taxes reveals that both sources are paid more equally by all income and wealth levels of society than they are necessarily regressive against lesser levels. Property taxes are ad valorem taxes, that is, they are based on the value of the property as determined by a professional appraisal system. Kansas has made the appraisal process as uniform as possible with an investment in technology, systems and training. If performed properly, which the state has gone to great lengths to ensure, appraisals represent the relative value of property throughout the state. Sales taxes are also based on value as determined by the retail market wherever located within the state and everyone pays the same rate. The relative equality property and sales taxes does not lessen the regressive nature of these taxes as a percent of household income, however it does establish their fairness as a source of taxes.

Wealthy, high-income persons are apt to reside in the more up-scale, high-value property. Poor, low-income persons conversely tend to live in standard, low-cost property. Between the two extremes, the value of a property is usually commensurate with the income of the occupant. Thus, the amount of property tax paid, whether directly or indirectly through rent to a landlord who pays the tax directly, is equalized proportionally according to the property value. The items purchased by people tend to reflect their ability to pay. Wealthy persons tend to purchase costly, luxury goods. Low-income persons typically purchase lower cost, standard goods. Thus, the amount of sales tax paid is equalized proportionally according to income. Although exact equality is not achieved in both instances, the result is more or less an equality of taxation.

A condition of equality is obviously not the case with the income tax when some pay and some do not pay. Regardless of the asserted economic benefits of exempting “job creators”, who are under no requirement to produce jobs to receive the exemption and who continue to receive the same state and local government services and facilities as do taxpayers, the tax favoritism policy is manifestly unfair and discriminatory. Equal taxation is all fair-minded people desire, not the unproven economic development schemes offered by Governor Brownback. Kansans expect everyone to pay their equal share of the taxes necessary to pay for state and local government services and facilities.

Footnote: Flentje, H. Edward and Aistrup, Joseph A., Kansas Politics and Government, The Clash of Political Cultures, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln and London, 2010, Page 171.

 By Dave Warren, Co-Founder Moderate Party of Kansas

‘Concealed Carry’ and Public Buildings

 

By Dave Warren Moderate Party Co-Founder

The Kansas Legislature in 2013 permitted a person with a‘concealed carry’ permit to take their gun into some public buildings. The ‘concealed carry’ law originally permitted building occupants to post signs indicating that guns were not allowed on their premises. Concealed carry permit holders apparently felt that banning their weapons was an affront to their good character and intentions, because the gun lobby pressed the legislature to eliminate the signage restriction. In doing so, the Legislature gave local governments time to put security measures in place to make public buildings secure or allow concealed weapons inside. Included in the delay were schools, institutions of higher education, and government-owned health care facilities (except mental health). The time delay for compliance was probably given in recognition of the expense of complying with no state financial assistance.

Admittedly, a building entrance door sign banning guns offers no assurance of safety from a gun attack. Security measures likewise offer no assurance of safety from a gun attack by a concealed carry permit holder, unless the weapon is held. The type of security measures effective to ban weapons from a public building would be metal detectors, x-rays, and body frisks monitored or performed by a paid employee or employees. The expense is essentially the same as needed for an airport boarding area. Small jurisdictions generally will be unable to afford security measures and will be coerced into accepting concealed weapons inside their offices and meeting rooms. Larger jurisdictions will be more likely to afford security, but to finance it will have to either forgo another need or raise taxes. Those jurisdictions in the middle will face costs disproportionate to the benefit. They will probably opt to permit concealed weapons rather than incur the expense.

The alternatives to permit conceal carry or provide security measures are not the only ones. A jurisdiction could simply deny building access to everyone except employees. Business of citizens could be transacted in a lobby area with a bullet-proof, pass-through window like those found in all-night gas stations and with closed circuit television and computer equipment.Public meetings would be attended with remote viewing.Besides initial costs, an on-going financial burden would be avoided. Personal contact between citizens and government employees who serve them would be sacrificed. This arrangement may be the unintended consequence of the Legislature and Governor Brownback cow-towing to the gun lobby, rather than serving the Common Good.

Gun attacks in public buildings are not fantasies. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (July 14, 2010) reports that between 1997 -2010, workplace homicides totaled 8,666 of which 6,850 were shootings, many of which occurred in buildings. The number of shooting homicides involving local government, mostly law enforcement, was 355. Although few homicides involved service employees or elected officials, there have been recent incidents in Saylorsburg, PA; Kirkwood, MO; and Wilmington, DL where deaths occurred.

The potential exists when the government closest to the people enforces laws that persons who may have a mental illness willmanifest their opposition to enforcement through gun violence.Truth is, this is not a “concealed carry” issue. It’s a mental health and gun control issue. State institutions and local governments should not be forced to either accept concealed weapons or spend outrageous sums to insure safety. The Common Good is the protection of citizens from becoming victims of gun violence. Holders of concealed carry permits would better serve their communities by simply leaving their weapons at home or in their car when visiting public buildings or institutions.

Hustled in Kansas

How do you feel about the plan of Governor Sam Brownback to eliminate the state individual income tax? So far during the past session, the Legislature has been compliant with the Governor’s plan by reducing the income tax rate further over the next couple of years. It’s still a ways from Zero. This tells me that if Sam Brownback is not reelected in 2014, the plan to starve the State of Kansas of revenue will be stopped. But in the meantime, the damage will have been done as state services are short-changed.

According to its Web site, “Kansans for No Income Tax, Inc. is a nonprofit working to educate Kansas taxpayers about the benefits of eliminating the state income tax.” Toward the end of the 2012 Legislative session, the group flooded Johnson County with a mailer. It was a move to pressure Senators into supporting the Brownback revenue plan. Whether the mailer was effective or other factors prevailed, the income tax was reduced and many residents were simply exempted from paying it.

According to Kansans for No Income Tax, Inc. (KNIT), our state has the 19th highest state and local tax burden in the country and our economic outlook is ranked 37th in the nation. Never mind that no source for this data is cited, the “state and local tax burden” includes more than the income tax and, therefore, is not indicative that income tax is the problem for the relatively high ranking. Similarly, the source for the “economic outlook” rank is not given. But never mind, outlooks are not performance, merely estimates which may be accurate or not.
KNIT’s witty Web site goes on, ”Eliminating the state income tax doesn’t mean other taxes increase.” Well, the state sales tax just went up on July 1 above the rate it was set to return to before the emergency rate bump. Also, local governments are now preparing the next year’s budgets and many are seeking higher property taxes

The KNIT claims continue, “Reducing taxes does not mean eliminating essential services.” That’s a flimsy, ill-defined statement that does not address reduced budgets for state agencies, schools and higher education or other fiscal tricks like borrowing from funds dedicated to other purposes.

KNIT continues, “It’s about job creation and economic growth.” Sure, it is. It’s about making the wealthy richer. And finally, “Eliminating the state income tax provides a permanent solution to grow our state, increase personal wealth, and provide a more steady tax base for our future.” Notice that the previous statement does not say that state services and schools will be adequately funded. Actually, since the new income tax rates have not been in effect during a tax return filing period, the effect on economic growth is undetermined. If you buy their argument, you do so because you believe you’ll benefit while the other citizens of the state suffer.

The advocates of no Kansas income taxes contend that their cause will mean “more money in your pocket for Kansas taxpayers.” Is that true? I’m retired. Most of my retirement income is exempt from Kansas income tax. After applying deductions to the taxable balance, I pay little or no Kansas income tax. The truth is that “no income tax” will mean less money in my pocket as sales and property taxes rise. There are a lot of other folks who are in the same position as me. Not just seniors, but other Kansas taxpayers, should be cautious about buying this “no income tax” pig in a poke.

Written by Dave Warren

Critique of Kansas Republican Party Platform, Part VI, re: Immigration

Critique of Kansas Republican Party Platform, Part VI, re: Immigration

(The format of this post is to present, in italics, a section or excerpts thereof of the 2012 Kansas GOP platform followed by the critique.)

Legal immigration is a blessing to this country, and with the promises of America, a blessing to all.  Preserving that promise for future generations requires that we protect the sovereignty of our country and secure our borders.  Illegal immigration is not compatible with this goal.  Immigration and citizenship with all of its privileges, executed pursuant to the law, are an essential component of that promise.  It is, therefore, the duty of all who seek the promise of America to respect the laws of our land.  We oppose amnesty.

Immigration is a matter of national concern, but not a fit subject for state policy. Efforts by individuals like Kansas’ very own anti-immigration activist Sec. of State Kobach have wasted taxpayer dollars in various states across the country when federal courts deemed the laws he has crafted as unconstitutional. State elected officials need not be concerned with federal immigration laws. However, Kansas Senators and Representatives should know the position of their party on immigration issues. In order to craft a position on immigration issues, members of a political party need to understand the existing U.S. immigration system, how it is broken and ways it may be reformed. The immigration system is complex, providing for several visa categories, each intended to serve a different purpose and having different requirements and enforcement methods. Reform of the system requires mechanisms to deal with an estimated 11.5 million undocumented (or illegal, depending on one’s viewpoint) immigrants and additional measures to prevent unauthorized persons from continually entering the country and seeking employment outside of the legal immigration system. Hopefully, the immigration reform pending in Congress will provide a fair and workable system that meets the needs of the country and the humanitarian concerns for immigrants, documented or not.

English is the official language of the state of Kansas, and unless contrary to federal law, all published state documents, resources, advertisements, media and online material should be made available only in our official language.  Employers should have the right to hire or terminate employees based on their competency in the state’s official language.

The above section is counter-productive if written communication is desired with non-English speaking, literate immigrants. Also, for a party that seeks less government regulation of business, it seems strange that they would want to open this can-of-worms by inserting itself in the day-to-day operations of private businesses.

Unchecked illegal immigration is unacceptable within the State of Kansas.  Employers hoping to take advantage of cheap labor resources using illegal aliens in their work force will not be tolerated.  Every effort must be used to ensure that all employees working within the state of Kansas are legal.  E-Verify, an internet –based system that verifies the employment authorization and identity of employees must be used throughout the state for all employees when hired to work within Kansas.

The required use of the E-verify system is mandated in a phased-in method by the reform bill recently passed by the U.S. Senate. It remains to be seen if the House of Representatives will preserve this feature of the Senate bill. Since all Representatives are Republicans, we can only hope they have read their party’s platform.

Law enforcement agencies must use all available resources to remove from the state all illegal aliens involved in crimes in the most expeditious manner. Maximum cooperation should be the norm between all law enforcement agencies within the state when dealing with enforcement of laws affecting illegal immigrants.

Enforcement of federal immigration laws is not a responsibility of state law enforcement agencies. The state should have a system to report criminal convictions, felonies or misdemeanors, of non-citizens with or without visas to federal immigration officials.

Incentive programs to entice illegal immigrants to Kansas must be terminated.  These programs include issuing of driver’s licenses to illegal aliens and the granting of in-state tuition to colleges and universities to illegal immigrants.

Two “enticement” programs are named above. It would be nice to know what other such programs the GOP would terminate. Would activities of religious charities to support undocumented immigrants be in the Republican crosshairs? Stopping in-state tuition for Kansas high school graduates whose parents are Kansas taxpayers, but not U.S. citizens, is short-sighted. Education should be encouraged, not discouraged. Given that the state provides less than half of the funding for public universities, this denial of in-state tuition seems to be vindictive, rather than based on financing higher education. Vindictive does not encourage political support.

Kansas should join with the 25 other states that have passed legislation to refuse implementation of the Real ID Act of 2005.  This act requires all states to issue a federal standardized driver’s license or personal identification card.  Only legal Kansas residents should be permitted to receive state-issued driver’s licenses or other identification cards which could be used to misrepresent citizenship status to other government entities or prospective employers.

Implementation of the Real ID Act of 2005 is in abeyance and provisions of the Senate immigration reform bill prohibit a national ID card. This issue was raised as a national security measure. Minimum and uniform standards for driver’s licenses, the de facto, identification card for such purposes as air travel seems like a good idea. However, it runs contrary to the fears of some that a national idea card would limit personal freedom. A dialogue on this issue should be expanded for the sake of national security.

Written by Dave Warren

Critique of Kansas Republican Party Platform, Part V, re:

Supporting our Military

(The format of this post is to present, in italics, a section or excerpts thereof of the 2012 Kansas GOP platform followed by the critique.)

A strong national defense requires a modernized, fully equipped, and trained armed force.  Their noble mission and the sacrifices they have made mandate that the men and women of these all-volunteer forces be given the greatest honor and respect.

The Veterans Administration needs to provide adequate and timely support for our veterans.  Kansas should support veterans’ service organizations.

We encourage actions and policies that will help employers and communities to support National Guard members and their families as they serve our state and nation.  We encourage Kansas employers to hire veterans.

The GOP platform is an inadequate statement of support for the military and veterans. The Moderate Party believes the state should do more to assist our veterans who make up nearly 10% of the population of Kansas. Record numbers of service members are returning from war with both visible and invisible wounds that complicate and often debilitate their lives.Our returning service members deserve first rate care, unyielding compassion, and opportunity. In recognition the sacrifices of military families, we must continue to provide them with extraordinary community support systems. It is in the best interest of Kansas to invest in the facilities and services that will provide veterans with a smooth transition back to civilian life.

To accomplish the above stated goals, the Moderate Party of Kansas proposes:

  1. Better access to Veterans Administration medical facilities and benefits.Sparse and underfunded veteran service organizations are not equipped to react to a rapid influx of returning soldiers. Additionally the VA’s dysfunctional reputation further dissuades vulnerable new veterans from accessing VA services. State supported special advocates should assist Kansas veterans in their dealings with the VA and advise coordinated Kansas Congressional delegation dealings with the VA.
  2. Expanded and priority mental health services for veterans suffering PTSD, related mental disorders and addictions. Over 35% of veterans returning from war have a mental health diagnosis.
  3. Better access for rural disabled veterans through transportation assistance to VA facilities for treatment and to obtain earned benefits. Geographically a majority of Kansas is not within 100 miles of a VA hospital.
  4. Increased funding for the Kansas Veterans Commission to update and develop regional centers across all areas of Kansas to assist present veterans and prepare for the influx of post 9/11 veterans.
  5. Tuition waivers at State universities, junior colleges and technical schools for wartime veterans who were legal residents of Kansas when they entered military service. This benefit should be transferable to a Kansas service member’s spouse if the Veteran chooses that option. This benefit can be used in addition to a Federal GI Bill.
  6. Special services to assist veterans in finding employment. Veterans are an extremely valuable workforce resource, possessing leadership skills, discipline, and work ethics that are catalysts for innovation and prosperity.
  7. Vastly expanded housing opportunities for veterans and their families. The Kansas Veterans Commission homes for veterans who are homeless or needing physical rehabilitation services should be expanded into population centers and seek creative solutions to find and generate safe and affordable housing opportunities in rural areas.

All Kansas veterans’ programs should be pursued in cooperation with those provided by the U.S. government to avoid duplication of services and to enhance the services available to veterans in Kansas.

Written by Dave Warren and Aaron Estabrook

Critique of Kansas Republican Party Platform, Part III, re:

 

(The format of this post is to present, in italics, a section or excerpts thereof of the 2012 Kansas GOP platform followed by the critique.)

Upholding the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms

  • Gun and ammunition ownership is responsible citizenship, enabling Americans to defend themselves, their property, and communities.

The implication in this statement of support for gun and ammunition ownership is that those persons not owning guns and ammunition are less responsible citizens, which is ludicrous. What is expected is that those persons owning guns and ammunition exercise an extra degree of responsibility to avoid accidents caused by misuse of firearms and that they be held accountable for failure to do so. Also, the statement’s inclusion of “communities” among those things defended by firearms smacks of vigilantism. We have local and state law enforcement, the State Guard and federal armed forces to defend our communities from enemies both foreign and domestic.

  • We call for education in constitutional rights in schools, and we support the option of firearms training in federal programs serving senior citizens and women.

If the civics curriculum of public schools were actually consulted, the platform writers would be aware that the Kansas and U.S. constitutions and the rights conferred thereby were part of the core educational experience. The mystifying part of this sentence is the desire to expand government by including firearms training, presumably as an entitlement, for seniors and women receiving federal benefits. Why “firearms training” should be part of Medicare, Social Security, food stamps, etc. is not made clear.

The Moderate Party of Kansas fully supports the constitutional rights conferred by the Second Amendment, no more and no less. The Moderate Party supports the power of local governments under home rule to provide for regulation of gun ownership in accordance with community standards. The Moderate Party also supports the power of the State to provide for such statewide gun rights and regulations that are consistent with the Kansas Constitution.  

Written by Dave Warren of Leawood, KS

Send your essay on Kansas Politics to moderateks@gmail.com

If you want to keep updated on everything we are doing “like” https://www.facebook.com/ModerateKS

 

Bad things happen

When bad things happen, it seems that there is an immediate urge for a permanent fix of the circumstances that led up to the bad thing happening. The first reaction of some people to something bad happening is to attempt to do whatever is necessary to prevent it from ever happening again. At least, this seems to be the first reaction when a bad thing happens. This reaction to bad things happening is commonly exhibited by persons interviewed by the news media, by pandering politicians, by unfortunate victims and by the family and friends of unfortunate victims. In other words, it’s everyone’s first wish.

Whence the urge for a permanent fix? There is a naïve belief that random, unpredictable events can somehow be controlled. There are simply too many variables involved in the occurrence of a bad thing to expect absolute control over whether or not a bad thing happens again. It’s a laudable sentiment, but it creates problems for actually finding a way to deal with the bad thing. Despite our best intentions, it is unreasonable to expect to prevent a bad thing from ever happening again. The most that can be expected is that the odds of a bad thing happening again may be reduced, but even this result cannot be guaranteed.

First, practical solutions that show promise to reduce the incidence of a bad thing are disputed for many reasons, including alleged impracticality, excessive cost, interference with personal liberties, inadequacy, etc. The interesting thing about these criticisms is that no alternatives are presented as counter-proposals by the nay-sayers to a workable solution. The opposition to a solution seems designed to prevent any solution.

Secondly, naïve solutions are targeted at specific circumstances surrounding the bad thing. One of the latest bad things, a tragic shooting of school children and teachers, has prompted suggestions of putting armed guards in schools and/or arming teachers all over the United States. The proponents of turning schools into fortresses have tunnel vision, omitting other venues where mass shootings have occurred such as movie theaters, supermarkets, shopping malls, work places and places of worship, from the scope of the solution. The naïve solution is seen as the ultimate panacea without regard to its short-comings.

Thirdly, due to the emotional investment of the proponents of naïve solutions, criticisms of the solution are often taken as personal attacks on its proponents. This reaction deters others from criticizing the bad idea and suggesting practical solutions that show promise of reducing the chance of re-occurrence of the bad thing. In the meantime, perhaps in sympathy with the proponents of naïve solutions, others become invested in the naïve solution. Typically they are not interested in hearing a critical analysis of its short-comings.

A current example of a workable solution for mass shootings is reasonable regulation of firearms. The solution is aimed at reducing both the availability of weapons to persons who fit the profile of mass-murderers and limiting the ability of weapons to cause massive destruction of human life in a matter of seconds. The workable solution is having a difficult time making traction against the simplistic idea of creating fortresses, an idea that is as old as civilization and one that is totally eclipsed by modern technology. Let’s get reasonable and solve mass shootings.

Written by Dave E. Warren of Leawood, KS

Blog at WordPress.com.